LAXMAN BHAGWANDAS MAHBUBANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 861/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2006-078 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the purchase value of the immovable property was to be considered as unexplained investment and deemed income. The assessee's contention regarding the notice under Section 148 being bad in law was also not accepted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident individual, did not file a return of income for AY 2006-07. The AO reopened the case based on AIR information regarding the sale of an immovable property for Rs. 1,41,00,000. Notice under Section 148 could not be served.

What were the issues?

Whether the purchase of an immovable property can be treated as unexplained investment and deemed income, and if the notice for reopening the assessment was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 139(1),Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM

For Appellant: Shri Deepak N. Kanabar, A.R, Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

सुनवाई की तायीख / : 22.03.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 30.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai, dated 08.01.2016 which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟) dated 10.03.2014. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) erred in confirming that the gross purchase value of immoveable property amounting to Rs.1,41,00,000/- as unexplained investment and deemed to be income of the appellant in the year under appeal.

P a g e | Mr. Laxman Bhgwandas Mahbubani Vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(3)(2) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the appellant's contention that notice u/s. 148 is bad in law.

3. Without prejudice the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the appellant is not eligible of deduction u/s 54 as appellant has not filed the return u/s 139(1).

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the appellant's contention that purchase consideration is paid out of the sale proceeds of the old flats and sources were duly explained.

5.

Without prejudice the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the appellant's contention that the appellant is 50% owner of the immoveable property purchased.

6.

The orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO are bad in law and on facts.

7.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or delete the foregoing grounds of appeal

.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee who is a non- resident individual had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration i.e AY. 2006-07. On the basis of AIR information received by the A.O that the assessee had during the F.Y. 2005-06 sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,41,00,000/-, the case of the assessee was reopened under Sec.147 of the Act. Notice under Sec. 148 issued by the A.O on 20.03.2013 could not be served in the normal course, as the assessee was not found available at the address. Service of the notice by affixture also did not result to compliance on the part of the assessee.

3.

During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O gathered from a perusal of the agreement obtained from the office of the Sub-

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →